Search for: All records

Abstract Over the past several years, a multitude of methods to measure the fairness of a machine learning model have been proposed. However, despite the growing number of publications and implementations, there is still a critical lack of literature that explains the interplay of fair machine learning with the social sciences of philosophy, sociology, and law. We hope to remedy this issue by accumulating and expounding upon the thoughts and discussions of fair machine learning produced by both social and formal (i.e., machine learning and statistics) sciences in this field guide. Specifically, in addition to giving the mathematical and algorithmic backgrounds of several popular statistics-based fair machine learning metrics used in fair machine learning, we explain the underlying philosophical and legal thoughts that support them. Furthermore, we explore several criticisms of the current approaches to fair machine learning from sociological, philosophical, and legal viewpoints. It is our hope that this field guide helps machine learning practitioners identify and remediate cases where algorithms violate human rights and values. 

This paper studies bandit problems where an agent has access to offline data that might be utilized to potentially improve the estimation of each arm’s reward distribution. A major obstacle in this setting is the existence of compound biases from the observational data. Ignoring these biases and blindly fitting a model with the biased data could even negatively affect the online learning phase. In this work, we formulate this problem from a causal perspective. First, we categorize the biases into confounding bias and selection bias based on the causal structure they imply. Next, we extract the causal bound for each arm that is robust towards compound biases from biased observational data. The derived bounds contain theground truth mean reward and can effectively guide the bandit agent to learn a nearly-optimal decision policy. We also conduct regret analysis in both contextual and non-contextual bandit settings and show that prior causal bounds could helpconsistently reduce the asymptotic regret. 

Over the past several years, multiple different methods to measure the causal fairness of machine learning models have been proposed. However, despite the growing number of publications and implementations, there is still a critical lack of literature that explains the interplay of causality-based fairness notions with the social sciences of philosophy, sociology, and law. We hope to remedy this issue by accumulating and expounding upon the thoughts and discussions of causality-based fairness notions produced by both social and formal (specifically machine learning) sciences in this field guide. In addition to giving the mathematical backgrounds of several popular causality-based fair machine learning notions, we explain their connection to and interplay with the fields of philosophy and law. Further, we explore several criticisms of the current approaches to causality-based fair machine learning from a sociological viewpoint as well as from a technical standpoint. It is our hope that this field guide will help fair machine learning practitioners better understand how their causality-based fairness notions align with important humanistic values (such as fairness) and how we can, as a field, design methods and metrics to better serve oppressed and marginalized populaces. 

To address the sample selection bias between the training and test data, previous research works focus on reweighing biased training data to match the test data and then building classification models on there weighed raining data. However, how to achieve fairness in the built classification models is under-explored. In this paper, we propose a framework for robust and fair learning under sample selection bias. Our framework adopts there weighing estimation approach for bias correction and the minimax robust estimation approach for achieving robustness on prediction accuracy. Moreover, during the minimax optimization, the fairness is achieved under the worst case, which guarantees the model’s fairness on test data. We further develop two algorithms to handle sample selection bias when test data is both available and unavailable.